in reply to Re: Perl modules or standard tools for searching hierachical data
in thread Perl modules or standard tools for searching hierachical data
|
|---|
| Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
|---|---|
|
Re^3: Perl modules or standard tools for searching hierachical data
by graff (Chancellor) on Mar 13, 2007 at 12:58 UTC | |
If there's a problem, I don't think it involves the grep operation in the code I suggested. In the "for" loop over top-level parents, the grep does not involve a regex match, and is not susceptible to "false-alarm" substring matches. It is only returning the keys for those elements in the %node hash that are not the children of other nodes. Hash key lookups are always based on exact matches -- "abc" does not match "abcd" as a hash key. The two sample records you cited involve two child values having the same parent value, so if I understand what you've said so far, their ordering relative to each other should not matter. If that parent value happens to be the child in some other record, it would matter to have that other record output before these two. Since you have pipe-delimited data, I'm assuming you've extracted the data from the older server into a text file, and you're reading from that file in order to sort it, which makes perfect sense. Of course, my code would need to be adjusted slightly for pipe-delimited input instead of space-delimited: Apart from that, if there's still a problem, you would need to post a minimal demonstration -- a snippet like mine, including sufficient "real-world" data, that exhibits the problem, and perhaps some clarification as to how the actual output differs from the desired output. | [reply] [d/l] |
by SlackBladder (Novice) on Mar 13, 2007 at 17:59 UTC | |
You are correct when you say you are assuming that I am extracting data into a file, and then working on it. I am perfectly happy to post the connection routines I am using plus the data and time stuff (for a log file)here but I think it may be a little cluttered if I do that, I will post it in the "Code Catacombs" so that it can be re-used if required....... Let see if I can get the "readmore" TAG to work.... This is the code (all of it) that I am using the run over the extracted data... Here is a sample from the result set.... I was hoping that the number "A1-4100|A1" would be fairly close to the top of the "sorted" list as "A1-4100" is the parent for a ton of numbers, however, it appears at line 1705 (not show as I think I have probably killed the web site already with the data I have posted !!!) regards Nigel | [reply] [d/l] [select] |
by graff (Chancellor) on Mar 13, 2007 at 19:06 UTC | |
<code> or like this:
<c> When you preview your post, you'll find links to formatting tips for PM. Now, as to your sample data: you didn't do what I asked. You posted one set of input, and a completely separate set of output. The two sets seem to have nothing in common apart from the formatting, and your closing comment doesn't make sense: I was hoping that the number "A1-4100|A1" would be fairly close to the top of the "sorted" list as "A1-4100" is the parent for a ton of numbers, however, it appears at line 1705 (...)Huh? Why would you care about the specific line number where a given record actually shows up in the output? All that matters is that all dependent records come after it. If that is not the case for a given run, create a small subset of the data to serve as a test set, run that through the script, and if you can show that the ordering is incorrect, post just that (hopefully small) minimal set of records that demonstrate the error. Note that the actual ordering of output from my original code should be: the first top-level parent, then all records dependent on that, then the next top-level parent, then all records dependent on that, and so on. (Update: note that the notion of "first top-level parent" is arbitrary; the "keys" function returens hash keys in essentially random order, so if you want to see top-level parents handled in a specific order, you'll need to sort them before they go into the grep function.) | [reply] |
by SlackBladder (Novice) on Mar 14, 2007 at 11:16 UTC | |
by SlackBladder (Novice) on Mar 14, 2007 at 12:19 UTC | |
by graff (Chancellor) on Mar 14, 2007 at 22:42 UTC | |
| |